Talk:Charlestowne Mall/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 22:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page seems pretty straightforward, hopefully, this will be relatively quick. These are my initial notes, I'll probably add more edits as they come up.-Just a quick skim of the page.

After fully reviewing the page, I'll kick it back to you to clean up the content. The page seems well researched, just some syntax work needs to be done. I went ahead and cleaned up some minor grammatical errors. Overall, very good job. Etriusus 22:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-Vios

Earwig isn't picking up anything. The article looks good on this front.

Lead

'a freeway' Is there a specific freeway? Seems rather vague otherwise
'in Geneva' Please specify it is Geneva, Illinois.
'After being sold by Wilmorite,...' Expand on this, the sentence seems disjointed and almost contradictory to the preceding sentence.
'last of which closed a year later.' Carson's closed a year later or every store was closed?

History

I can't access the Newspaper sources, They're behind a paywall. I will take it on good faith.
'unsuccessfully attempted to purchase land in DeKalb to build a mall.' Is this information relevant? Was this supposed to be the original site?
'with JCPenney not slated to open until 1992' Run-on sentence
'The opening of Charlestowne Mall....' Run-on sentence
'that it did not already' very strange wording, unnecessary
' Although an attorney representing the businesses..." what is the conclusion to this?
'with a slated opening of 2001.' why is this in future tense?

Decline

', its distance from a major freeway' This is a throw-away line, likely not notable enough for the lead
' On January 4, 2011, Sears announced that their Charlestowne...' did they ever close? I assume yes but this sentence does not specify
' 2012 to spend $35,000 on a study..' What was the result of this?

2013–present: Closure and abandonment

'The new owners planned to demolish' was it demolished?
'Construction was expected to start' Did it ever start?
'concerns over' specify?
'plans were not suitable for the city' Can you specify?

General

A large amount of the article is written in the purview of something being planned or announced, I think it's technically considered future participle tense. This needs to be changed or at least expanded to establish if something actually took place. I.e. "Construction was expected", "was to be given", etc. This is describing events in the past but leaves it to interpretation if the event actually occurred. Try to keep the article in the realm of more concrete events/more direct. It's okay if the outcome is unknown, but make that clear that something isn't known.

This 'The rest of the mall interior, originally announced to close on October 31, 2017, finally closed December 1.' Is an excellent example of how it should be done.

@Etriusus: Think I've addressed most of your concerns. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Just a handful of last minute clarifications. No dead links detected, gave the page a quick c/e. Page looks very good and once these are done, I'll sign off on the GA. Etriusus 02:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

'Target also built a store across from the mall in 2001' Is this notable information? Was the target still part of the mall? Unless it is relevant, please remove per WP:NOTE
'A full presentation of the future plans of the mall was to be given to the city within the next 45 days.' What came out of this presentation? Is it the aforementioned study, Krausz Companies' plan, or something else entirely?
- The Target being built across from the mall shows that it impacted the community by influencing peripheral growth. That kind of coverage is commonplace. I removed the comment on the 45 day presentation as it seemed to be a dead end. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, signing off the GAR, excellent work. Etriusus 04:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Yes
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Yes
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: